Ogutu v Kenya Airports Authority (Cause E025 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2932 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court struck out a dismissed engineer's Shs. 27 million claim because he filed it six years after his dismissal, past the Employment Act's three-year limit.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Claimant is entitled to payment for execution of extra responsibilities as Resident Engineer
- 2.Whether the Respondent is liable for the Claimant's psychiatric Schizophrenia
- 3.Whether the Claimant's termination of employment was procedurally and substantively unfair
- 4.Whether the Claimant's suit was statute barred under section 90 of the Employment Act
- 5.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the remedies sought
Key legal issues
#Whether the suit was barred by the limitation period in section 90 of the Employment Act
Yes. The dismissal took place on 5th March 2018; the suit filed on 4th April 2024 far exceeded the three-year limit, and the court was divested of jurisdiction notwithstanding the claimed extension order in Kisumu ELRC Misc. No. E001 of 2024.
The court held that section 90 of the Employment Act provides a three-year limitation period running from the act or the end of employment, and that no civil action arising from the Act or a contract of service may be instituted outside that period. Relying on Radido J.'s decision in Josephat Ndirangu v Henkel Chemicals (EA) Ltd and the Court of Appeal's Divecon v Samani, the court found it has no jurisdiction to extend time or entertain stale employment claims, and the purported extension order could not revive the suit.
Whether the termination of the Claimant's employment was substantively and procedurally unfair
Not determined. The suit was struck out for want of jurisdiction before the merits of the unfair termination claim could be decided.
The Claimant alleged that the summary dismissal following his manslaughter conviction was both substantively and procedurally unfair, that he was denied a hearing, and that the Respondent failed to investigate his mental health condition. The Respondent maintained the dismissal was lawful under its Human Resource Manual and section 44(4)(f) of the Employment Act. However, the limitation bar disposed of the matter, and these competing contentions were never adjudicated on their merits.
Legal principles established
#- Section 90 of the Employment Act prescribes a mandatory three-year limitation period for employment claims, with no power in the court to extend time once it has expired
- A suit filed after the three-year limitation period under section 90 must be struck out for want of jurisdiction
Court orders
#- 1.The suit is struck out for want of jurisdiction, the claim having been filed out of time contrary to section 90 of the Employment Act
- 2.Each party to bear their own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act; the court held it was divested of jurisdiction by section 90 of the Employment Act (three-year limitation)
Relief refused
#Declaration that the termination was unlawful; payment for extra responsibilities (Kshs. 19,020,000 and Kshs. 3,205,340); medical expenses (Kshs. 787,026); 12 months' salary compensation (Kshs. 4,305,804); interest and costs
The entire suit was time barred under section 90 of the Employment Act, leaving the court without jurisdiction to entertain any of the reliefs; the court declined to extend time
Extension of the limitation period pursuant to the order in Kisumu ELRC Misc. No. E001 of 2024
The Employment Act contains no provision empowering the court to extend time to commence claims out of time
Costs
Each party to bear their own costs
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
I therefore find and hold that section 90 of the Employment Act provides a three-year statute of limitation.
an employee has an outer limit of three years from the end of their employment to initiate a lawsuit.
There is no wriggle room to extend or otherwise alter the provisions of section 90 of the Employment Act.
My finding and conclusion in the matter before me is that as the claim was time barred by the time suit was filed, I have no option but to strike out the suit for want of jurisdiction and order each party to bear their own costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently describes the dismissal date and the nature of the conviction: the claim describes the termination letter as dated 5th March 2018 while the Respondent's submissions state the summary dismissal took place on 29th November 2017; the opening of the disposition refers to incarceration 'for the murder of his spouse' while the claim and disposition elsewhere state the conviction was for manslaughter.
The medical expenses relief is inconsistently stated: the claim prays for Kshs. 787,026/- while the judgment elsewhere records the Claimant seeking medical expenses of Kshs. 806,040/-.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ogutu v Kenya Airports Authority (Cause E025 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2932 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Employment and Labour Relations Court cause, Kisumu). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2932/eng@2025-10-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.